As the March 5 date nears, the date the State Board of Elections panel officially announces all election winners, GOP candidate for Governor, Kirk Dillard, trailing by approximately 250 votes,sounds a bit closer to conceding to fellow State Senator Bill Brady.

Dillard acknowledged his hopes are slim at this point. After talking to various local election officials, Dillard said he has "no hint of fraud, no hint of improprieties" in the results.

My weekly radio commentary from Cities 92.9:

I hope you had a wonderful Christmas; and now we look forward to what we all hope to be a healthy, happy and successful 2010 for all our friends and family.

As we look to politics in the New Year, perhaps you have the same questions I do.

Why is it that our politicians never really get it. . . never really learn from the past?

Go back just a short time in our political history and take a look at Bill Clinton. Gets elected from the tiny state of Arkansas; a real charmer; high popularity ratings, and even I was starting to think he was doing a pretty good job running our country; and kind of liked the guy; and what does he do?  Well, we all know what he did; and in the Oval Office for gosh sakes.

In 1994, for the first time in 40 years Republicans took over control of the House and controlled the Senate following the success of the Contract With America, spearheaded by then Congressman and later Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

The GOP was in the driver’s seat; and placed the Clinton White House on the defensive; big time.

It was thought by Democrats and Republicans including yours truly, that the GOP would control government for at least the next 50 years.

So how did the GOP manage to mess that up?  Well, the Contract with America was spearheaded by Republicans; many espousing moral values.  Nothing wrong with that; unless you’re a hypocrite.  Voters don’t like that.

But indeed; pride commeth before the fall.  Full of themselves; giddy with power; the GOP tried to bully their legislation through.  In 1995, there was a brutal budget battle and the GOP puffed up their chests and with their newly acquired power, forced a shutdown of the federal government.  This was, to say the least, very unpopular with the voters, who re-elected Clinton in 1996; defeating Bob Dole.

As  Tom DeLay recounted, in his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight" ; Gingrich "made the mistake of his life."

He goes on to say the following of Gingrich's handling of the shutdown:

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child.The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

Add to those blunders, GOP House Speaker and wonder boy Gingrich, who had been talking moral values since the 1994 Contract with America victory, was overwhelmingly reprimanded by the House for ethics violations. The house ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty; the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

In 1997, just three short years after the 1994 GOP successes, Gingrich was forced to resign since he was told if he didn't, he'd be voted out, by his old Pal, Tom "The Hammer" Delay.

The GOP then tried to remove President Clinton; that failed; and then went on to lose 5 House seats in the 1998 mid-term elections; the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn’t hold the Presidency.  Gingrich took the blame for those losses.  He not only resigned his post as Speaker, he left the House.

Did the GOP learn from that debacle?  No.  They nominated Bob Livingston as Newt’s replacement but before he could even be sworn in, he had to withdraw because of admitting to numerous extra-marital affairs.  That in itself was bad enough but the real hypocrisy in voters’ memories was that Livingston had led the attack against Bill Clinton and his lack of moral values.  Finally, the GOP elected Dennis Hastert from Illinois as House speaker; a quiet, unassuming man who while many felt was ill-prepared for this post, surely wouldn’t make any more negative headlines for the GOP.

So with all those blunders and more; Democrats now are in charge.  They control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency; and even though President Obama’s approval ratings are dropping; with the healthcare legislation passed last week, a euphoria with shades of 1994 in reverse, is setting in for many Democrats.  If this healthcare legislation succeeds to any degree, the Democrats stand to possibly control government for decades.

In studying political history; there’s a common thread.  They all want power.  Have the Democrats learned from history; or is the old adage more apt to hold true; that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I hope you had a wonderful Christmas; and now we look forward to what we all hope to be a healthy, happy and successful 2010 for all our friends and family.

Maybe you have the same questions I do as we approach our next election cycle in 2010.

Why is it that our politicians never really seem to get it. . . never really learn from the past.

Go back just a short time in our political history and take Bill Clinton; please. Gets elected President of the United States, from the tiny state of Arkansas; a real charmer; high popularity ratings, and even I was starting to think he was doing a pretty good job running our country; and kind of liked the guy; and what does he do? Well, we all know what he did; and in the Oval Office for gosh sakes.

In 1994, for the first time in 40 years Republicans took over control of the House and controlled the Senate following the success of the Contract with America, spearheaded by then Congressman and later Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

The GOP was in the driver’s seat and placed the Clinton White House firmly on the defensive.

It was thought by Democrats and Republicans including yours truly, that the GOP would control government for at least the next 50 years.

So how did the GOP manage to mess that up? Well, the Contract with America was spearheaded by Republicans; many espousing moral values. Nothing wrong with that; unless you’re a hypocrite. Voters don’t like that.

But pride commeth before the fall; full of themselves and giddy with power; the GOP tried to bully their legislation through. In 1995, there was a brutal budget battle and the GOP puffed up their chests and with their newly acquired power, forced a shutdown of the federal government. This was very unpopular with the voters, who re-elected Clinton in 1996; defeating Bob Dole.

As  Tom DeLay recounted, in his book, No Retreat, No Surrender,  Gingrich "made the mistake of his life." He goes on to say the following of Gingrich's handling of the shutdown.

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child.The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

Add to those blunders, GOP House Speaker and wonder boy Gingrich, who had been talking moral values since the 1994 Contract with America victory, was overwhelmingly reprimanded by the House for ethics violations. The house ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty; the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

In 1997, just three short years after the 1994 GOP successes, Gingrich was forced to resign or told he'd be voted out, by his old Pal, Tom “The Hammer” Delay.

The GOP then tried to remove President Clinton; that failed; and then went on to lose 5 House seats in the 1998 mid-term elections; the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn’t hold the Presidency. Right or wrong, Gingrich took the blame for those losses. He not only resigned his post as Speaker, he left the House.

Did the GOP learn from that debacle? No, they nominated Bob Livingston as Newt’s replacement but before he could even be sworn in, he had to withdraw admitting to numerous extra-marital affairs. That in itself was bad enough but the real hypocrisy in voters’ memories was that Livingston had led the attack against Bill Clinton’s lack of moral values. Finally, the GOP elected Dennis Hastert from Illinois as House speaker; a quiet, unassuming man who while many felt was ill-prepared for this post, surely wouldn’t make any more negative headlines for the GOP.

So with all those blunders and more that followed, Democrats now are in charge. They control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency; and even though President Obama’s approval ratings are dropping, with the healthcare legislation passed in the Senate last week, a euphoria with shades of 1994 in reverse, is setting in for many Democrats.  If this healthcare legislation succeeds to any degree, the Democrats stand to possibly control government for decades.

In studying political history; there’s a common thread. They all want power. Have the Democrats learned from history; or is the old adage more apt to hold true; that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.   

Second lowest in nation, only California has a worse credit rating than Illinois

SPRINGFIELD-A major financial ratings firm downgraded the state of Illinois’ creditworthiness today, delivering bad news to Gov. Quinn’s administration as it pushes for a new round of borrowing.

Moody’s Investors Services lowered the state’s ratings on general obligation bonds from A1 to A2 and lowered ratings on related bonds affecting about $24 billion in state debt because of “significant weakening” in state revenues and an inability by Quinn and state lawmakers to significantly narrow an $11.6 billion budget gap.

After the CBO Scam

By Contributing Writer Smileys Pundit

Both the Pelosi and the Reid health care bills defer benefits under the legislation for three years.  The “benefits” of the program won’t actually kick in until 2013, presumably in the first year of President Obama’s second term.  But the taxes, fees and benefit cuts in Medicare and other programs (hereafter collectively referred to as “taxes”) being used to fund the program are scheduled to begin in 2010.  This timing of revenue and benefits flies in the face of historically consistent legislative behavior.  Legislators never want to be associated with any kind of tax or cost, schedule a burden ahead of a benefit or provide for collection of the revenue before the program the revenue is to fund has begun. 

             The costs of the healthcare bills are enormous, nearly $900 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), whose pronouncement on the legislation’s deficit neutrality is key to any bill getting off the ground. The CBO has concluded that the legislation will be deficit neutral at the end of 10 years.  Let’s put aside the implications of the fact that this neutrality is achieved by comparing 10 years of revenue to 7 years of expenses and that thereafter, the program will cause the deficit to climb astronomically.  The bills provide that the American people will be paying a lot of money for three years before any of them begin to see any benefit.  Remembering that Americans are a tax averse people and that taxes, duties, fees and charges were among the primary causes of the American Revolution, the fact that the Democrats would schedule new taxes without any perceptible offsetting benefit to commence in an election year seems remarkable to say the least.  It is particularly remarkable when one considers that this tax increase, unlike allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, cannot be characterized as some tax-the-rich scheme; these taxes will hit the middle class-hard; and the Medicare cuts will hit the elderly (whose voter turnout is predictably very heavy)-harder.  With the exceptions of the usual suspects, Republicans have taken pains to stay away from any aspect of this legislation. Why then, would the Democrats not only vote for a program which has generated increasing popular disapproval (the latest Rasmussen poll puts support at 38%), but structure it in a way that virtually guarantees voter unhappiness?  That question has puzzled even such know-it-alls as Rush Limbaugh who, at least as of last Friday, hadn’t come up with the answer.

             Smiley modestly believes he has the answer:  The three year delay isn’t going to happen and it was never meant to happen.  The three years of revenue before the benefits kick in was programmed into the legislation for the exclusive purpose of scamming the CBO to make a finding of deficit neutrality.  That office has to assume that the taxes provided for are going to be imposed and collected, and that the Medicare benefits cuts prescribed, unlike previously mandated cuts, will actually be imposed; therefore, it has no choice but to credit the legislation with all that revenue and savings to offset the coming costs.  But once the CBO has signed off on the legislation, once it has passed Congress as deficit neutral legislation, and once the president has signed it proudly proclaiming the successful adoption of this historic legislation which will not add one penny to the federal deficit, reality will return.  The same legislators who for years have annually deferred mandated cuts in Medicare, will introduce legislation to again defer the cuts and to postpone the taxes provided for in the health care legislation. 

             The resulting legislation will have two benefits for the Democrats.  First, it will remove the targets which would otherwise be on their backs due to the new taxes which would start in an election year.  More importantly, it would place the Republicans in a dilemma.  If the Republicans, true to their traditional tax cutting tendencies, go along with the legislation, they will find themselves co-opted on the issue of the deficit.  Just as the Democrats deflected any criticism of current mounting deficits by pointing to the final year of the  Bush administration, any future criticism of mounting federal deficits would be countered by noting that Republicans also voted to kill the taxes needed to avoid the increasing deficits.  If, on the other hand, Republicans oppose the legislation, they will be portrayed as the people who want to increase taxes on the middle class and the elderly (here look for a return to the Daschle playbook, where the Republicans are called the opponents of the elderly).  The rhetoric is already clear: “The Republicans only favor tax cuts for the rich; they tried to perpetuate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but when it comes to taxes that impact ordinary working people and service cuts to the elderly, they refuse to cut them and give the common people the same benefits they seek for the wealthy.”

             The fact that we, as a nation, have just about maxed out our charge card and the credit card company (China) is getting nervous is for another time.  For now, let it be noted that the folks who are now trying to give you health care legislation are already planning to insulate themselves from blame for its inherent costs.

By Contributing Writer Smileys Pundit

This is the first of what I hope to be several postings regarding Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four of his fellow terrorists in federal court in New York for the 9/11 attacks.  This focus will focus on the logic (or lack of it) in Holder's decision, based upon his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Holder had told the Committee that trying the defendants in federal district court in New York City gave the Justice Department the "best chance to prosecute" them.  Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) asked:

You have repeatedly said that your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Article III courts is because that is where you have the best chance to prosecute. . . How could it be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before a military commission and be executed?

Holder gave a forceful response:

The determination I make of where I think we can best try these cases does not depend on the whims or desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. . . I have decided Article III Courts are the best place to do that.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not making this decision.  The attorney general of the United States is making this decision.

Holder's answer sounded tough:  he wasn't going to let some terrorist determine where he was going to be tried; Holder was going to make that decision.  Holder would show KSM who was running things here, and it wasn't KSM.  The last time I heard of anyone being that tough was as a child, when I read about Br'er Bear and Br'er Fox ignoring Br'er Rabbit's plea not to be thrown into the briar patch.  I can hear KSM's pleas now: 

"Please, General Holder, please don't try me in New York; anything but that.  Torture me, waterboard me, keep me in Gitmo, put me before a military commission, but in the name of Allah, don't put me in front of a jury.  And afford me all those constitutional protections.

And discovery rights.

Have you no humanity?"